RFC: cleaner version of test.block

RFC: cleaner version of test.block

[Chris Friesen]

I propose the following version of test.block.  I think the code's
easier to read than the one using "cut", and it removes the dependency
on stuff outside of bash.

Also, running the call to udev backgrounded makes the whole scan take 1
second, rather than 1 second for each entry.

Chris





#!/bin/sh
#
# test.block - run udev(8) on each block device in /sys/block

SYSFSDIR=/sys           # change this for a nonstand sysfs mount point
BIN=./udev              # location of your udev binary
export ACTION­d       # 'add' or 'remove'


for i in ${SYSFSDIR}/block/*; do
         # add each drive
         export DEVPATH=${i#${SYSFSDIR}}
         $BIN block &

         # add each partition, on each device
         for j in $i/*; do
                 if [ -f $j/dev ]; then
                         export DEVPATH=${j#${SYSFSDIR}}
                         $BIN block &
                 fi
         done
done



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN developer relations
Here's your chance to show off your extensive product knowledge
We want to know what you know. Tell us and you have a chance to win $100
http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?HRPT1X3RYQNC5V4MLNSV3E54
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel

Re: RFC: cleaner version of test.block

[Robert Love]

On Tue, 2003-10-21 at 01:35, Chris Friesen wrote:
> I propose the following version of test.block.  I think the code's
> easier to read than the one using "cut", and it removes the dependency
> on stuff outside of bash.
> 
> Also, running the call to udev backgrounded makes the whole scan take 1
> second, rather than 1 second for each entry.

I did not test it, but if it works as advertised I think it is an
improvement.

	Robert Love




-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN developer relations
Here's your chance to show off your extensive product knowledge
We want to know what you know. Tell us and you have a chance to win $100
http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?HRPT1X3RYQNC5V4MLNSV3E54
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel

Re: RFC: cleaner version of test.block

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 01:35:04AM -0400, Chris Friesen wrote:
> 
> I propose the following version of test.block.  I think the code's
> easier to read than the one using "cut", and it removes the dependency
> on stuff outside of bash.

Looks good, care to make a patch against the 004 release?

> Also, running the call to udev backgrounded makes the whole scan take 1
> second, rather than 1 second for each entry.

The 004 release fixes that problem, so you don't have to run udev in the
background.

On some basic tests (test.tty) with debugging turned off (comment out
the DEBUG=true in the Makefile) all tty device nodes are created in less
than .5 seconds.  So I think we are ok as far as time goes now :)

thanks,

greg k-h


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN developer relations
Here's your chance to show off your extensive product knowledge
We want to know what you know. Tell us and you have a chance to win $100
http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?HRPT1X3RYQNC5V4MLNSV3E54
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel

Re: RFC: cleaner version of test.block

[Chris Larson]

* Chris Friesen (chris_friesen@sympatico.ca) wrote:
> I propose the following version of test.block.  I think the code's
> easier to read than the one using "cut", and it removes the dependency
> on stuff outside of bash.
> 
> Also, running the call to udev backgrounded makes the whole scan take 1
> second, rather than 1 second for each entry.
[snip]

One thing to take note of here, is that adding additional bash
dependencies makes it harder to use on embedded devices, which generally
use dash, busybox ash, or similar.  (hotplug is another project that
suffers from this, but that can be remedied by using diethotplug)
--
Chris Larson - kergoth at handhelds dot org
Embedded Linux Developer - clarson at ti dot com
OpenZaurus Project Maintainer - http://openzaurus.org/


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN developer relations
Here's your chance to show off your extensive product knowledge
We want to know what you know. Tell us and you have a chance to win $100
http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?HRPT1X3RYQNC5V4MLNSV3E54
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel

Re: RFC: cleaner version of test.block

[Greg KH]

On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 11:55:43AM -0500, Chris Larson wrote:
> * Chris Friesen (chris_friesen@sympatico.ca) wrote:
> > I propose the following version of test.block.  I think the code's
> > easier to read than the one using "cut", and it removes the dependency
> > on stuff outside of bash.
> > 
> > Also, running the call to udev backgrounded makes the whole scan take 1
> > second, rather than 1 second for each entry.
> [snip]
> 
> One thing to take note of here, is that adding additional bash
> dependencies makes it harder to use on embedded devices, which generally
> use dash, busybox ash, or similar.  (hotplug is another project that
> suffers from this, but that can be remedied by using diethotplug)

Yes, but this is just a test script.  And this is also one reason why
udev is linked statically...

thanks,

greg k-h



-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by OSDN developer relations
Here's your chance to show off your extensive product knowledge
We want to know what you know. Tell us and you have a chance to win $100
http://www.zoomerang.com/survey.zgi?HRPT1X3RYQNC5V4MLNSV3E54
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel

Re: RFC: cleaner version of test.block

[Chris Friesen]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 490 bytes --]

Greg KH wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 01:35:04AM -0400, Chris Friesen wrote:
> 
>> I propose the following version of test.block.  I think the code's 
>> easier to read than the one using "cut", and it removes the
>> dependency on stuff outside of bash.

> Looks good, care to make a patch against the 004 release?

I've attached a patch against 005 for both the block and tty scripts.  I
didn't bother running udev backgrounded, since as you say, the new code
runs a lot faster.

Chris

[-- Attachment #2: udev.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1706 bytes --]

# This is a BitKeeper generated patch for the following project:
# Project Name: udev
# This patch format is intended for GNU patch command version 2.5 or higher.
# This patch includes the following deltas:
#	           ChangeSet	1.133   -> 1.135  
#	          test.block	1.11    -> 1.12   
#	            test.tty	1.3     -> 1.4    
#
# The following is the BitKeeper ChangeSet Log
# --------------------------------------------
# 03/10/22	chris@doug.mackenzie.net	1.84.1.1
# cleaning up the test script
# --------------------------------------------
# 03/10/22	chris@doug.mackenzie.net	1.134
# Merge bk://kernel.bkbits.net/gregkh/udev/
# into doug.mackenzie.net:/home/chris/hacking/udev
# --------------------------------------------
# 03/10/23	chris@doug.mackenzie.net	1.135
# cleaning up test script
# --------------------------------------------
#
diff -Nru a/test.block b/test.block
--- a/test.block	Thu Oct 23 00:25:14 2003
+++ b/test.block	Thu Oct 23 00:25:14 2003
@@ -16,14 +16,13 @@
 
 for i in ${SYSFSDIR}/block/*; do
 	# add each drive
-	export DEVPATH="/"`echo $i | cut --delimiter='/' --fields=3-`
+	export DEVPATH=${i#${SYSFSDIR}}
 	$BIN block
 
 	# add each partition, on each device
 	for j in $i/*; do
 		if [ -f $j/dev ]; then
-			export DEVPATH="/"`echo $j |  \
-				cut --delimiter='/' --fields=3-`
+			export DEVPATH=${j#${SYSFSDIR}}
 			$BIN block
 		fi
 	done
diff -Nru a/test.tty b/test.tty
--- a/test.tty	Thu Oct 23 00:25:14 2003
+++ b/test.tty	Thu Oct 23 00:25:14 2003
@@ -15,6 +15,6 @@
 export ACTION=$1	# 'add' or 'remove'
 
 for i in ${SYSFSDIR}/class/tty/*; do
-	export DEVPATH="/"`echo $i | cut --delimiter='/' --fields=3-`
+	export DEVPATH=${i#${SYSFSDIR}}
 	$BIN tty
 done

Re: RFC: cleaner version of test.block

[Greg KH]

On Thu, Oct 23, 2003 at 12:30:52AM -0400, Chris Friesen wrote:
> Greg KH wrote:
> >On Tue, Oct 21, 2003 at 01:35:04AM -0400, Chris Friesen wrote:
> >
> >>I propose the following version of test.block.  I think the code's 
> >>easier to read than the one using "cut", and it removes the
> >>dependency on stuff outside of bash.
> 
> >Looks good, care to make a patch against the 004 release?
> 
> I've attached a patch against 005 for both the block and tty scripts.  I
> didn't bother running udev backgrounded, since as you say, the new code
> runs a lot faster.

Sorry for the delay, but I've included your patch in the 006 release.

thanks,

greg k-h


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program.
Does SourceForge.net help you be more productive?  Does it
help you create better code?  SHARE THE LOVE, and help us help
YOU!  Click Here: http://sourceforge.net/donate/
_______________________________________________
Linux-hotplug-devel mailing list  http://linux-hotplug.sourceforge.net
Linux-hotplug-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/linux-hotplug-devel